Holistic Approaches for Impact Assessment in Urban Environmental Management

  • Toshiya Aramaki
Part of the cSUR-UT Series: Library for Sustainable Urban Regeneration book series (LSUR, volume 1)


In order to create a better urban environment, various measures which aim to reduce environmental burdens and mitigate specific environmental impacts should be conducted. However these measures often shift environmental burdens to other areas or other fields, or create new burdens to the environment. Therefore, we need to grasp various environmental impacts which may be caused by these measures holistically, and choose appropriate measures for sustainable management of the urban environment. This chapter introduces several tools and approaches for a holistic assessment of the environmental impact of urban environmental management.


Life Cycle Assessment Municipal Solid Waste Global Warming Potential Life Cycle Impact Assessment Source Separation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Graedel TE, Allenby BR (2003) Industrial ecology, Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Ministry of Environment, Japan (2003) White paper on Sound material-cycle society (in Japanese), FY2003 editionGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Brunner PH, Rechberger H (2003) Practical handbook of material flow analysis, Lewis Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Brunner PH, Baccini P (1992) Regional material management and environmental protection, Waste Management and Research, 10: 203–212Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Binder C, Schertenleib R, Diaz JH, Bader HP, Baccini P (1997) Regional water balance as a tool for water management in developing countries, Water Resources Development, 13(1): 5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Aramaki T, Thuy NTT (2006) Estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus flows by Material Flow Analysis in Haiphong city, Vietnam, Proc. 34th Annual Meeting of Environmental Systems Research, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Wenzel, H. (1997) Environmental assessment of products 1997–1998. Michael Hauschild and Leo Alting, London: Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Mendes MR, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2004) Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in Sao Paulo City as determined by LCA, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(1): 47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Goedkoop M and Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99—A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Assessment—methodology report PRe Consultants B. V.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Istubo N, Inaba A (2004) LIME-A Comprehensive Japanese LCIA Methodology based on Endpoint Modeling-: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on EcoBalance, pp 87–88Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Aramaki T, Galal M, Hanaki K (2006) Estimation of reduced and increasing health risks by installation of urban wastewater systems, Water Science and Technology, 53(9): 247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Murray CJL, Lopez AD (1996) The global burden of disease; a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from disease, injury, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020, Global burden of disease and injury series, vol I, WHO/Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Freeman III AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and Methods, Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Inaba R, Nakatani J, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2002) Integrated assessment of environmental improvement in Lake Suwa by multiple countermeasures and impact of global warming by additional CO2 Emission (in Japanese), J Japan Society on Water Environment, 25: 635–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting and Resource Allocation, McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment, J Environmental Economics and Management, 41: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Nakatani J, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2007) Integrated assessment based on cost-benefit analysis considering the preferences for multi-aspect impacts (in Japanese), Environmental Science, 20: in pressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshiya Aramaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urban EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations